Appeal 2007-1104
Application 09/962,697
dimensioning of T-shaped elevations, as recited in claim 14. (Br. 14.)
Additionally, Appellants contend that the Examiner failed to establish a
showing of a teaching or motivation to combine the teachings of Fukutomi
with Jung. (Br. 15.) In response, the Examiner contends that the
combination of Fukutomi and Jung teaches all the limitations of claims 13
and 14. Further, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fukutomi and
Jung to yield claims 13 and 14. (Answer 8 and 13.) The Examiner therefore
concludes that the combination of Fukutomi and Jung renders claims 13 and
14 unpatentable. (Id.)
We affirm.
ISSUES
The pivotal issues in the appeal before us are as follows:
(1) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner failed to establish that
Fukutomi anticipates the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
when Fukutomi teaches an elevation that appears to be greater in height
than the height of a bump connected thereto?
(2) Have Appellants shown that the Examiner failed to establish that one of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the present invention, would have
found that the combination of Fukutomi and Jung renders the claimed
invention unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013